Faf Read

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful read-behavior detail (it returns the full parsed structure, not a partial view), but says nothing about failure modes such as a missing or malformed .faf file, which matters for a path-based reader.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by return content and usage ordering. The return-content sentence partially duplicates the output schema, but no sentence is filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the tool has one defaulted parameter and a covered safety profile. The main omission is edge-case behavior when the target file is absent or invalid.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single 'path' parameter, and the description only obliquely implies it by saying '.faf file'. It never explains the default (project.faf), path form, or resolution rules, so the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read project DNA from a .faf file') and even summarizes the returned structure. It does not differentiate itself from the many sibling tools (faf_stringify, faf_validate, faf_model), so an agent must infer the boundaries.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Use this as the first step to understand any FAF-enabled project' gives clear when-to-use context and establishes the tool's entry-point role. It names no exclusions or alternatives, so an agent is not told when another sibling is preferable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.